Tweet
GENOCIDE: CONVERSATION STOPPER AND THE EVENTS OF 1915
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Sept 10 2013
by Matt Haydon*
10 September 2013 /
There is a "war of words" going on within the Armenian academic
community in the pages of Armenian Weekly about those who participated
in a recent conference titled "The Caucasus at Imperial Twilight:
Nationalism, Ethnicity and Nation-Building, 1870s-1920s" (Tbilisi,
Georgia, June 5-9).
A group of professors are accusing the Armenian scholars who
participated in the conference to discuss the Caucasus and the events
of 1915 either as denialists or being co-opted.
As a member of the Armenian community and a participant in the Tbilisi
conference, I was disturbed to learn that I was also labeled a genocide
denier. While I am an Armenian whose family also escaped the horrors
of what happened in the Ottoman Empire, I am also a student who is
interested in finding out how the events of 1915 took place, what
exactly happened and why it happened. This is the point of attending an
academic conference: to explore new ideas and concepts and to interact
with scholars who are working on the issues. More importantly, it is
to identify areas in research that are lacking and need exploration.
What was the purpose of the Tbilisi Conference? Was the goal of the
conference to push the agenda of genocide denial? Absolutely not.
First of all, the conference, as apparent in its title, covered the
imperial rivalries in the 19th and early 20th centuries and tried to
understand local competition of different nationalisms along with the
end of the Ottoman Empire as well as the root causes of World War I.
At no point in the literature about the conference or during the
interaction with the organizers of the conference was there any
indication that the conference would center on the events of 1915 in
Anatolia and the topic of genocide denial.
Why do we need to accuse those who disagree with the Armenian version
as a genocide denier? What is the purpose of doing it? The participants
of the conference were from all over the world, including the United
States, Canada, Turkey, Russia and Georgia. Only one scholar was
from Armenia, Ara Papian. There were a few Armenian scholars from
the United States who have been subsequently labeled denialists.
All of the other Armenian scholars from Armenia withdrew at the last
minute due to external pressures, i.e., the government of Armenia. It
is not the job of a government to instruct scholars what to study and
how to study the subject matter. The Republic of Armenia should not
constrain academic debate and not penalize those who do not subscribe
to the official Armenian historiography. This goes against the core
of academic freedom.
At no point during the conference did the scholars deny that there
was suffering in Anatolia in 1915 or before. This is an important
fact the Turkish government has acknowledged; there was suffering of
the people, especially Armenian. However, the Turkish government will
not describe the event as genocide due to a number of reasons. When
I asked a Turkish scholar about why Turkey refused to recognize it
as genocide, he said:
"There are three reasons: We still do not know exactly what happened.
The key source for our understanding is the Russian archives and
they have just become accessible to scholars. Second, 'genocizing'
the events of 1915 started after 1965 and as a way of perpetrating
the image of the terrible Turk, recycling Islamophobic discourses
and turning American public opinion against a NATO ally during the
Cold War; third, given what took place in Karabakh in terms of ethnic
cleansing and [the] deliberate killing of people because they were
Turks shows the capacity of what revolutionary Armenian committees were
capable of doing. Finally, there is a powerful memory in Anatolia and
[it] identifies the Armenian revolutionary groups as villains. No
Turkish government could ignore this powerful memory."
Thus, the Turkish government recognizes the sufferings of both the
Armenian population as well as the Muslims.
The major question some of the participants had of the events of 1915
was not whether 1915 was a genocide or not, but rather what, why and
how it happened? Some participants did, in fact, label the events
of 1915 as genocide, but there was not a reaction to the label. In
other words, people were more focused on what happened rather than
the label. Can genocide laws be applied to events that happened before
the laws were enacted? Why is it so important that the events of 1915
be called genocide? There are major problems in genocide studies.
The genocide discipline has created an environment of political
correctness that handicaps scholars and prevents them from in-depth
examination of controversial issues. The topic of genocide stirs many
emotions for those who want to be recognized as victims and those
who reject the label. The concept of victimhood has become a constant
through genocide studies. Unfortunately, Armenians have reified this
concept by "othering the Turks" as an enemy.
There is no other concept that has gripped this many Armenians:
The past is nothing but genocide and without its recognition, the
Armenians somehow lose historical and cultural significance. This
concept goes further with the notion that the Turks are guilty and
the Armenians are victims. It has become "the Church" for Armenians
both in Armenia and outside the country.
There are two issues: Do we, the Armenians, insist on a concept,
which stops any form of conversation, and also become a partner to
the perpetration of the image of the "Terrible Turk"? Second, do we
know exactly what took place in 1915? What is necessary are more
multi-disciplinary studies that represent different disciplines,
geographies and national historiographies, which was the very
purpose of the conference. Moreover, the scholars who have different
perspectives need to come together and discuss and help us to better
understand what took place without dehumanizing each other.
Archives in Russia and Turkey as well as the formerly closed
Ottoman archives are now open. The archives are important avenues to
"reconstruct the past" from those fragments and find answers, but both
sides of the argument must engage and speak to each other rather than
organizing conferences just among the believers. Armenians must not
simply follow the paradigm that the events of 1915 were genocide and
there is no other way of understanding what took place. What must be
realized by all scholars is that there are shades of gray in every
event and they should prepare to listen to the alternate narratives.
Once someone is labeled as a genocide denier, conversation and
exploration stop. Is this what we, the Armenians, want? To end the
conversation and mobilize the anti-Turkish groups, whether they are in
the United States or Anatolia, to push our version down the Turkish
throat? These tactics have not worked and will not work; instead,
they will make the Turks more resistant. Turkey is a regional power
with 80 million people and one of the fastest growing economies,
and we cannot impose our version of the past on Turkey.
The collective memory in Anatolia is diametrically different than
what we are told in the diaspora. We can only socialize and overcome
the excesses through debate and engagement to build a shared language.
What is the end goal of labeling a person a genocide denier? Will this
label cause Turkey or perhaps the United States government to change
their stance? The answer is no. Insisting on genocide will not build
any bridges with Turkey. We need to find another way of discussing
what took place. The last, well-funded campaign of the Azerbaijani
government to get the Karabakh killings to be recognized as genocide
shows that this weapon could easily be turned against Armenia as well
*Matt Haydon is a Ph.D. student at the University of Utah.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325995-genocide-conversation-stopper-and-the-events-of-1915-by-matt-haydon-.html
Today's Zaman, Turkey
Sept 10 2013
by Matt Haydon*
10 September 2013 /
There is a "war of words" going on within the Armenian academic
community in the pages of Armenian Weekly about those who participated
in a recent conference titled "The Caucasus at Imperial Twilight:
Nationalism, Ethnicity and Nation-Building, 1870s-1920s" (Tbilisi,
Georgia, June 5-9).
A group of professors are accusing the Armenian scholars who
participated in the conference to discuss the Caucasus and the events
of 1915 either as denialists or being co-opted.
As a member of the Armenian community and a participant in the Tbilisi
conference, I was disturbed to learn that I was also labeled a genocide
denier. While I am an Armenian whose family also escaped the horrors
of what happened in the Ottoman Empire, I am also a student who is
interested in finding out how the events of 1915 took place, what
exactly happened and why it happened. This is the point of attending an
academic conference: to explore new ideas and concepts and to interact
with scholars who are working on the issues. More importantly, it is
to identify areas in research that are lacking and need exploration.
What was the purpose of the Tbilisi Conference? Was the goal of the
conference to push the agenda of genocide denial? Absolutely not.
First of all, the conference, as apparent in its title, covered the
imperial rivalries in the 19th and early 20th centuries and tried to
understand local competition of different nationalisms along with the
end of the Ottoman Empire as well as the root causes of World War I.
At no point in the literature about the conference or during the
interaction with the organizers of the conference was there any
indication that the conference would center on the events of 1915 in
Anatolia and the topic of genocide denial.
Why do we need to accuse those who disagree with the Armenian version
as a genocide denier? What is the purpose of doing it? The participants
of the conference were from all over the world, including the United
States, Canada, Turkey, Russia and Georgia. Only one scholar was
from Armenia, Ara Papian. There were a few Armenian scholars from
the United States who have been subsequently labeled denialists.
All of the other Armenian scholars from Armenia withdrew at the last
minute due to external pressures, i.e., the government of Armenia. It
is not the job of a government to instruct scholars what to study and
how to study the subject matter. The Republic of Armenia should not
constrain academic debate and not penalize those who do not subscribe
to the official Armenian historiography. This goes against the core
of academic freedom.
At no point during the conference did the scholars deny that there
was suffering in Anatolia in 1915 or before. This is an important
fact the Turkish government has acknowledged; there was suffering of
the people, especially Armenian. However, the Turkish government will
not describe the event as genocide due to a number of reasons. When
I asked a Turkish scholar about why Turkey refused to recognize it
as genocide, he said:
"There are three reasons: We still do not know exactly what happened.
The key source for our understanding is the Russian archives and
they have just become accessible to scholars. Second, 'genocizing'
the events of 1915 started after 1965 and as a way of perpetrating
the image of the terrible Turk, recycling Islamophobic discourses
and turning American public opinion against a NATO ally during the
Cold War; third, given what took place in Karabakh in terms of ethnic
cleansing and [the] deliberate killing of people because they were
Turks shows the capacity of what revolutionary Armenian committees were
capable of doing. Finally, there is a powerful memory in Anatolia and
[it] identifies the Armenian revolutionary groups as villains. No
Turkish government could ignore this powerful memory."
Thus, the Turkish government recognizes the sufferings of both the
Armenian population as well as the Muslims.
The major question some of the participants had of the events of 1915
was not whether 1915 was a genocide or not, but rather what, why and
how it happened? Some participants did, in fact, label the events
of 1915 as genocide, but there was not a reaction to the label. In
other words, people were more focused on what happened rather than
the label. Can genocide laws be applied to events that happened before
the laws were enacted? Why is it so important that the events of 1915
be called genocide? There are major problems in genocide studies.
The genocide discipline has created an environment of political
correctness that handicaps scholars and prevents them from in-depth
examination of controversial issues. The topic of genocide stirs many
emotions for those who want to be recognized as victims and those
who reject the label. The concept of victimhood has become a constant
through genocide studies. Unfortunately, Armenians have reified this
concept by "othering the Turks" as an enemy.
There is no other concept that has gripped this many Armenians:
The past is nothing but genocide and without its recognition, the
Armenians somehow lose historical and cultural significance. This
concept goes further with the notion that the Turks are guilty and
the Armenians are victims. It has become "the Church" for Armenians
both in Armenia and outside the country.
There are two issues: Do we, the Armenians, insist on a concept,
which stops any form of conversation, and also become a partner to
the perpetration of the image of the "Terrible Turk"? Second, do we
know exactly what took place in 1915? What is necessary are more
multi-disciplinary studies that represent different disciplines,
geographies and national historiographies, which was the very
purpose of the conference. Moreover, the scholars who have different
perspectives need to come together and discuss and help us to better
understand what took place without dehumanizing each other.
Archives in Russia and Turkey as well as the formerly closed
Ottoman archives are now open. The archives are important avenues to
"reconstruct the past" from those fragments and find answers, but both
sides of the argument must engage and speak to each other rather than
organizing conferences just among the believers. Armenians must not
simply follow the paradigm that the events of 1915 were genocide and
there is no other way of understanding what took place. What must be
realized by all scholars is that there are shades of gray in every
event and they should prepare to listen to the alternate narratives.
Once someone is labeled as a genocide denier, conversation and
exploration stop. Is this what we, the Armenians, want? To end the
conversation and mobilize the anti-Turkish groups, whether they are in
the United States or Anatolia, to push our version down the Turkish
throat? These tactics have not worked and will not work; instead,
they will make the Turks more resistant. Turkey is a regional power
with 80 million people and one of the fastest growing economies,
and we cannot impose our version of the past on Turkey.
The collective memory in Anatolia is diametrically different than
what we are told in the diaspora. We can only socialize and overcome
the excesses through debate and engagement to build a shared language.
What is the end goal of labeling a person a genocide denier? Will this
label cause Turkey or perhaps the United States government to change
their stance? The answer is no. Insisting on genocide will not build
any bridges with Turkey. We need to find another way of discussing
what took place. The last, well-funded campaign of the Azerbaijani
government to get the Karabakh killings to be recognized as genocide
shows that this weapon could easily be turned against Armenia as well
*Matt Haydon is a Ph.D. student at the University of Utah.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-325995-genocide-conversation-stopper-and-the-events-of-1915-by-matt-haydon-.html